Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Abby Normal]

The irony of this statement is unbelievable. You are the one who is saying that a policeman of 1888 gave incorrect evidence in the witness box. Furthermore only a few posts ago you referred to that same officer as 'PC Plod'. So who is really being arrogant?

The fact of the matter is that there is a discrepancy in the evidence of Mizen and Cross. I have no idea if that discrepancy was investigated and/or resolved by the police in 1888. It depends if they regarded that discrepancy as significant. But the discrepancy exists and there is no evidence of any attempt by anyone to resolve it.

Bingo-the point seems to be a bit too subtle for some.

[Columbo]

Since there seems to be a lot of confusion going on, I may as well reiterate what I have said before about the differences inbetween what Lechmere said and what Mizen said. There are three major issues where the two differ.
1. Mizen says that he was told that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row, whereas Lechmere denies that such a thing was stated.
2. Mizen says that he was told that there was a woman lying flat on her back in Bucks Row, whereas Lechmere claims that Mizen was told that she could be drunk or dead, but his own best guess was that the woman was dead.
3. Mizen says that "a man" came up and spoke to him in the junction of Hanbury Street and Bakers Row, whereas Lechmere claims that both he and Robert Paul spoke to the PC.

These three points are troublesome for the carman, and they must be a fair ground for suspicion against him. Together, they form a logical pattern of action on the carmans behalf if he was the killer.
In case 1, it would have been of immense importance to Lechmere to be able to pass by the police instead of being taken back to the murder site as the discoverer of the body.
In case 2, it would have been vital to the carmans chances of being able to pass by the police that the severity of the errand was played down.
In case 3, the carman stood to gain a lot if he could convince the inquest that both himself and Paul had spoken to, or been within earshot of, PC Mizen, since that would have spoken in favour of the carman not having lied to the constable.

These three points all represent lies to my mind. When discussing them, it deserves mentioning that Jonas Mizen would have known from the outset that he stood the risk of being outnumbered by the carmen when the errand was discussed, provided that both carmen came forward. Consequently, if Mizen claimed at the inquest that he had been told that there was another PC in Bucks Row, and that he had not been told about the severity of the errand and that he had been spoken to by one man only (which was more or less exactly what he DID say at the inquest), then the combination of Lechmere and Paul would be able to disclose him as a liar if he was not telling the truth about the three points.
That in itself serves as a useful indication that the PC was indeed truthful. Why would he run the risk of being exposed as a liar? To conceal that he had been lacking in his duties on the murder night? Nope - since he was never such a thing at all, and consequently, he suffered no criticism at all at the inquest.
Another indication of who was the liar lies in how Mizen does not seem to have come forward to correct Neil about having been the first man to find the body. It would seem that Mizen thought that this was true. But how could he do that, if the carman had told how HE was the finder? Maybe because the carman never did tell him that - but instead said that there was a PC in place in Bucks Row, a man who Mizen understandably came to identify with Neil the moment he met him by the body?

The odds are therefore heavily stacked against the carman, regardless of the fact that we cannot conclusively prove that he lied at the inquest.

I would agree as well except didn't Paul testify he told Mizen he thought Nichols was drunk or dead? I believe that was posted on this thread.

We then fall back on the argument about Neil. I don't recall (as there is too much to process at this point for me) Neil saying he was the first person to discover her only that he discovered her, which he did, he just wasn't the first.

It would seem to me in the excitement of it all it would be very easy for Mizen to not mention the two carman that morning as they were getting doctors and ambulance carts. They probaby didn't have enough time to have a meaningful chat about details at that point, and as per Fisherman's theory Cross was out of the picture until his interview for the inquest.

Because the vocabulary was so different back then from now, I don't think Neil would correct Mizen if he testified that he discovered the body of Nichols. It's symantics at that point.

And Pierre may have a point of a misunderstanding or Neil mishearing something.

And to play devil's advocate, Cross or Paul, I don't think, were in any danger of being taken back to the crime scene. They didn't say they thought she was murdered, just that she was drunk or dead. I imagine that may have been a common occurence for police to come across some poor soul who expired in the streets. As a matter of fact all they had to say was she was passed out on the road. They didn't have to be that specific if the goal was to not get taken back to the crime scene.

Still, that doesn't take away suspicion from Cross.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Columbo: I would agree as well except didn't Paul testify he told Mizen he thought Nichols was drunk or dead? I believe that was posted on this thread.

At the inquest, it seems Paul said nothing at all about having informed Mizen about whether he thought Nichols was dead or drunk. The Times serves to tell the story:
Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen.

In the Lloyds interview, Paul claims to have done all the walking and talking himself, and that does not dovetail with the inquest evidence. In that interview, he says he told Mizen that the woman was long dead and cold.


We then fall back on the argument about Neil. I don't recall (as there is too much to process at this point for me) Neil saying he was the first person to discover her only that he discovered her, which he did, he just wasn't the first.

It would seem to me in the excitement of it all it would be very easy for Mizen to not mention the two carman that morning as they were getting doctors and ambulance carts. They probaby didn't have enough time to have a meaningful chat about details at that point, and as per Fisherman's theory Cross was out of the picture until his interview for the inquest.

But the excitement must have subsided at some point. And it is far from unreasonable to suggest that Mizen would have been aware of Neils claim to fame. So why did he not correct his colleague and set the investigation on the right track? Because, I would suggest, he thought it already WAS on the right track, since he was convinced that Neil had found the body and sent the carmen to him. As per a lying Lechmere.

Because the vocabulary was so different back then from now, I don't think Neil would correct Mizen if he testified that he discovered the body of Nichols. It's symantics at that point.

It was the other way around, Columbo - Mizen would be the one to correct Neil. And I fail to see your point about semantics. To me "I was the one to find the body" meant the same thing back then as it does today.

And Pierre may have a point of a misunderstanding or Neil mishearing something.

There is always the chance of mishearing things. But in Mizens case, he would have misheard the bit about the extra PC, he would have misheard the bit about the severity of the errand and he would have missed out on how Paul also spoke to him. Combined, I find that a bit rich.

And to play devil's advocate, Cross or Paul, I don't think, were in any danger of being taken back to the crime scene. They didn't say they thought she was murdered, just that she was drunk or dead.

According to Lechmere, that is. I don´t think Lechmere said anything at all about death. But let´s suppose he did - in such a case, with no established cause of death, it would arguably rest upon Mizen to clarify things and not allow a potentially very important witness to slip away.

I imagine that may have been a common occurence for police to come across some poor soul who expired in the streets. As a matter of fact all they had to say was she was passed out on the road.

Ah! But that was not what Lechmere claimed, was it? He said that he informed the PC that the woman was probably dead, as far as he understood! And THAT should have Mizen in his toes!!
However, if Lechmere did NOT inform Mizen about the potential severity of the errand, the PC had no reason to detain the carmen.

They didn't have to be that specific if the goal was to not get taken back to the crime scene.

Lechmere claimed that they WERE specific. But Mizen said that he was only informed that a woman "had been found" on the broad of her back in Bucks Row.
Now, Lechmere being the finder, what business did he have to say that the woman "had been found" there? Is that not a very strange thing to say when you have found the woman yourself?

Still, that doesn't take away suspicion from Cross.

It most definitely does not. It´s good to have the matters challenged in a friendly manner, by the way!

[Columbo]

Columbo: I would agree as well except didn't Paul testify he told Mizen he thought Nichols was drunk or dead? I believe that was posted on this thread.

At the inquest, it seems Paul said nothing at all about having informed Mizen about whether he thought Nichols was dead or drunk. The Times serves to tell the story:
Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen.

In the Lloyds interview, Paul claims to have done all the walking and talking himself, and that does not dovetail with the inquest evidence. In that interview, he says he told Mizen that the woman was long dead and cold.


We then fall back on the argument about Neil. I don't recall (as there is too much to process at this point for me) Neil saying he was the first person to discover her only that he discovered her, which he did, he just wasn't the first.

It would seem to me in the excitement of it all it would be very easy for Mizen to not mention the two carman that morning as they were getting doctors and ambulance carts. They probaby didn't have enough time to have a meaningful chat about details at that point, and as per Fisherman's theory Cross was out of the picture until his interview for the inquest.

But the excitement must have subsided at some point. And it is far from unreasonable to suggest that Mizen would have been aware of Neils claim to fame. So why did he not correct his colleague and set the investigation on the right track? Because, I would suggest, he thought it already WAS on the right track, since he was convinced that Neil had found the body and sent the carmen to him. As per a lying Lechmere.

Because the vocabulary was so different back then from now, I don't think Neil would correct Mizen if he testified that he discovered the body of Nichols. It's symantics at that point.

It was the other way around, Columbo - Mizen would be the one to correct Neil. And I fail to see your point about semantics. To me "I was the one to find the body" meant the same thing back then as it does today.

And Pierre may have a point of a misunderstanding or Neil mishearing something.

There is always the chance of mishearing things. But in Mizens case, he would have misheard the bit about the extra PC, he would have misheard the bit about the severity of the errand and he would have missed out on how Paul also spoke to him. Combined, I find that a bit rich.

And to play devil's advocate, Cross or Paul, I don't think, were in any danger of being taken back to the crime scene. They didn't say they thought she was murdered, just that she was drunk or dead.

According to Lechmere, that is. I don´t think Lechmere said anything at all about death. But let´s suppose he did - in such a case, with no established cause of death, it would arguably rest upon Mizen to clarify things and not allow a potentially very important witness to slip away.

I imagine that may have been a common occurence for police to come across some poor soul who expired in the streets. As a matter of fact all they had to say was she was passed out on the road.

Ah! But that was not what Lechmere claimed, was it? He said that he informed the PC that the woman was probably dead, as far as he understood! And THAT should have Mizen in his toes!!
However, if Lechmere did NOT inform Mizen about the potential severity of the errand, the PC had no reason to detain the carmen.

They didn't have to be that specific if the goal was to not get taken back to the crime scene.

Lechmere claimed that they WERE specific. But Mizen said that he was only informed that a woman "had been found" on the broad of her back in Bucks Row.
Now, Lechmere being the finder, what business did he have to say that the woman "had been found" there? Is that not a very strange thing to say when you have found the woman yourself?

Still, that doesn't take away suspicion from Cross.

It most definitely does not. It´s good to have the matters challenged in a friendly manner, by the way!

I appreciate the compliment, thanks.

I think this has been a good thread about Lechmere.

Columbo

[harry]

It's not too subtle at all.Mizen makes a claim that Cross denies.The onus is on Mizen to substanciate that claim with evidence.He does not.Cross is entitled under law to be considered innocent unless proven guilty.It appears he was so considered.A hundred and some years later people claim the authorities of that time got it wrong,and allowed a serial killer to go free. With them is the arrogance.

[John Wheat]

It's not too subtle at all.Mizen makes a claim that Cross denies.The onus is on Mizen to substanciate that claim with evidence.He does not.Cross is entitled under law to be considered innocent unless proven guilty.It appears he was so considered.A hundred and some years later people claim the authorities of that time got it wrong,and allowed a serial killer to go free. With them is the arrogance.

Your not wrong harry.

Cheers John

[GUT]

It's not too subtle at all.Mizen makes a claim that Cross denies.The onus is on Mizen to substanciate that claim with evidence.He does not.Cross is entitled under law to be considered innocent unless proven guilty.It appears he was so considered.A hundred and some years later people claim the authorities of that time got it wrong,and allowed a serial killer to go free. With them is the arrogance.

Perhaps even more to the point, they didn't think it suspicious at the time, but oh I keep forgetting the police were too stupid/biased/unexperienced (whatever you may choose) to find their backside with a mirror on a stick.

[drstrange169]

>>If it was that easy, you would win every argument. <<

There’s an argument I haven’t won?

>>There can always be levelled more than one suggestion of innocence but only one of guilt. It is therefore the QUALITY of the argument that rules the day, not the number of conjured-up innocent explanations.<<

I agree, but why wouldn’t I because it is the very point I was making. The “odds” are in favour of innocence.


>>In this case, the idea that Lechmere wanted to get to work with not disturbance is not a very good one - it would involve great risk. If he lied about the extra PC and Mizen found out that it was a lie, then he would have out himself at peril. <<

I agree again. It is not a great lie, but in the real world, there are very few of us who have not come up with a bad lie at least once in our life.


>>Your other suggestion does not take into account the part about the extra PC, does it? <<

Yes, it does, it goes to the heart of the debate.

Mizen misunderstood the situation. It remains the simplest and most obvious answer. I appreciate some might disagree with it, but none can prove it wrong.

It also has the advantage that it fits in with why all the authorities went with Xmere and Paul’s version of events.


>>As for the second alternative, that Lechmere thought that he had offered sufficient information, it is up to everyone to try and establish whether the suggestion is a good one or not. On the surface of things, it perhaps sounds reasonable - but I think you are forgetting about Mizen. If he was told that there was a possibly (or even probably) dead woman lying in Bucks Row, then he should have taken a profession interest in who found her<<.

Quite so, and why he didn’t remains a mystery or at the very least a subject of debate.

If Mizen was told there was a dead woman lying in Buck’s Row, he was duty bound to go.

If Mizen was told there was an insensible woman in Buck’s Row he was duty bound to go.

If Mizen was told a policeman was in need of his assistance he was duty bound to go.

Yet by his own words he finished “knocking up” before attending the scene. Mizen may have had a perfectly good reason to do what he did, but we don’t know what it was, consequently a question mark remains over PC Mizen’s action on that night. And questions remains whether Lechmere lied about another policeman or not.

>>My contention is that the carman never left the question open - he said that there was another PC in place, leding on that this PC was the finder.<<

In which case, Mizen was duty bound to render immediate assistance.

He didn’t.

Again, we must question Mizen’s actions.


>>So, as you see, it is all about the QUALITY of the suggestions we make. And not about the number of them. <<

As I said, that’s exactly my point, it’s not about the “odds” as you first suggested.


>>There is evidence that directly disputes it(That Paul was present). The Star wrote that Mizen spoke of "The other man (Paul), who went down Hanbury Street".<<

I afraid that doesn’t dispute it. Far from it, quite the opposite. It proves (according to them) Paul was present.
There is no reference in your version of the Star quote that places the time “the other man went down Hanbury Street”.

However, if we take the WHOLE grab from the Star in context and quote it accurately,

“Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street.”

So there is a specific reference to Paul being present when the conversation took place.
And there is a specific reference to when Paul went down Hanbury Street.
He went afterwards.
And there is a specific reference to who went with him. He went with Xmere.
And then there is your favourite, most accurate report in the Echo,

“By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness."

So Paul was present and left to go down Hanbury Street after, accompanied by Xmere.

Of course, we can argue semantics, but the actual facts are that the newspapers reported Paul was present when the conversation took place.


>>Mizen apparently readily accepted Neils claim to be the finder, …<<<

We have absolutely no way of knowing if that is true or not.

>>… in spite of how he must have known that it was not correct –<<

See above answer.

>>UNLESS he had been lied to about that extra PC.<<

Not so, even if the two carmen didn’t mention another PC, Mizen had no obvious reason to suppose Neil could not have been the first to discover Mrs. Nichols body. The truth would only have been apparent once he heard that Neil had denied there were two men involved. And according to the newspapers, he still denied it then, placing yet another question mark over Mizen's story.

[Fisherman]

Perhaps even more to the point, they didn't think it suspicious at the time, but oh I keep forgetting the police were too stupid/biased/unexperienced (whatever you may choose) to find their backside with a mirror on a stick.

And they never are, we all know that.

[drstrange169]

>>In the Lloyds interview, Paul claims to have done all the walking and talking himself, and that does not dovetail with the inquest evidence. In that interview, he says he told Mizen that the woman was long dead and cold.<<

No, he didn’t,

“I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame after I had told him the woman was dead.”

There is a full stop at the end of the sentence. He goes on to bitch up the police force to the reporter,

“The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time ...”


>>… it is far from unreasonable to suggest that Mizen would have been aware of Neils claim to fame. So why did he not correct his colleague and set the investigation on the right track? Because, I would suggest, he thought it already WAS on the right track, since he was convinced that Neil had found the body and sent the carmen to him.<<

Sounds plausible, but you’ve left out the information that makes it implausible.

From the Saturday morning onwards, stories were circulating about two men finding the body first. When Neil expressly dismissed the idea that two men showed him the body, Mizen is reported as saying he saw nothing of interest, clearly in this specific instant, two men leaving Buck’s Row were of immense interest.

>>There is always the chance of mishearing things. But in Mizens case, he would have misheard the bit about the extra PC …<<

Misheard or put mis-reasoned.

>> …he would have misheard the bit about the severity of the errand <<

The errand was severe whatever version he “misheard” according to the police code.


>>Lechmere claimed that they WERE specific. But Mizen said that he was only informed that a woman "had been found" on the broad of her back in Bucks Row. Now, Lechmere being the finder, what business did he have to say that the woman "had been found" there? Is that not a very strange thing to say when you have found the woman yourself?<<

Yet again, that's NOT what Mizen is reported as saying, the word "found" is the Star reporters choice of wording, there are no quotation marks around it so it cannot be claimed to be Mizen's exact words.
What Mizen is quoted as saying is,

"You are wanted in Buck's-row." "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there."

"You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there."

"You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row).

[Fisherman]

>>If it was that easy, you would win every argument. <<

There’s an argument I haven’t won?

Delusions of grandeur, Dusty - look it up. I enjoyed the joke if it was a joke, and I pity yoou if it was not. Take your pick.

>>There can always be levelled more than one suggestion of innocence but only one of guilt. It is therefore the QUALITY of the argument that rules the day, not the number of conjured-up innocent explanations.<<

I agree, but why wouldn’t I because it is the very point I was making. The “odds” are in favour of innocence.

So the whole argument was a useless play with words. I see.

>>In this case, the idea that Lechmere wanted to get to work with not disturbance is not a very good one - it would involve great risk. If he lied about the extra PC and Mizen found out that it was a lie, then he would have out himself at peril. <<

I agree again. It is not a great lie, but in the real world, there are very few of us who have not come up with a bad lie at least once in our life.

True - but the gist of the matter is that the suggestion has tio stand back to more likely ones. So once more, a useless play with words is all that you brought to the table.


>>Your other suggestion does not take into account the part about the extra PC, does it? <<

Yes, it does, it goes to the heart of the debate.

Mizen misunderstood the situation. It remains the simplest and most obvious answer. I appreciate some might disagree with it, but none can prove it wrong.

Of course nobody can. All I can do is to point to the lesser value. As I said, one misunderstanding is not unreasonable, but a whole set of them, including how he "misunderstood" that there were two man speaking to him and not just the one, does not rhyme with sense.

It also has the advantage that it fits in with why all the authorities went with Xmere and Paul’s version of events.

"Went with"? The carmen were the obvious finders, and that was accepted. The issue of whether Lechmere lied or not was never dealt with, with the possible exception of the jurymans question about if Lechmere really did tell Mizen about that extra PC. The mere fact that the question was posed tells us that the discrepancy was noticed, and since it could not be resolved (neither man backed down), it remained an open matter.
The problem with that was that the potential implications were seemingly missed.

>>As for the second alternative, that Lechmere thought that he had offered sufficient information, it is up to everyone to try and establish whether the suggestion is a good one or not. On the surface of things, it perhaps sounds reasonable - but I think you are forgetting about Mizen. If he was told that there was a possibly (or even probably) dead woman lying in Bucks Row, then he should have taken a profession interest in who found her<<.

Quite so, and why he didn’t remains a mystery or at the very least a subject of debate.

Not if Mizen was NOT told about the potential severity of the errand, no.

If Mizen was told there was a dead woman lying in Buck’s Row, he was duty bound to go.

If Mizen was told there was an insensible woman in Buck’s Row he was duty bound to go.

If Mizen was told a policeman was in need of his assistance he was duty bound to go.

So what´s the problem? He DID go.

Yet by his own words he finished “knocking up” before attending the scene. Mizen may have had a perfectly good reason to do what he did, but we don’t know what it was, consequently a question mark remains over PC Mizen’s action on that night. And questions remains whether Lechmere lied about another policeman or not.

Point one: Knocking up was one of his duties.
Point two: Monty - who is the one best suited out here to know about a policemans duties - says that Mizen followed protocol, as far as I remember.
Point three: In which scenario do you think Mizen was most likely to finish his knocking up business? One where the carman said "There´s a woman lying in the street in Bucks Row, and another PC is there. He asked us to send you there", or "Constable, I just found a woman lying in Bucks Row, and I think she is dead!"
To me, it sounds a lot more reasonable that Mizen would feel free to finish the knocking up errand if he was NOT told about the severity of the errand. Maybe you thibk it is the other way around, that a PC would feel much more at ease when told of a probable death?
Anyway, nobody said that Mizen did anything wrong, he was not reprimanded in any way and the finishing up of the knocking up errand may have taken five seconds only.

>>My contention is that the carman never left the question open - he said that there was another PC in place, leding on that this PC was the finder.<<

In which case, Mizen was duty bound to render immediate assistance.

He didn’t.

Again, we must question Mizen’s actions.

Again, they were not wrongful in any shape or form. Speak to Monty about it. He knows, you guess. And you guess wrong. Otherwise, show me the passage you are quoting.


>>So, as you see, it is all about the QUALITY of the suggestions we make. And not about the number of them. <<

As I said, that’s exactly my point, it’s not about the “odds” as you first suggested.

No, it´s not your point. You specifically argued that many arguments beat just one. They do not.


>>There is evidence that directly disputes it(That Paul was present). The Star wrote that Mizen spoke of "The other man (Paul), who went down Hanbury Street".<<

I afraid that doesn’t dispute it. Far from it, quite the opposite. It proves (according to them) Paul was present.
There is no reference in your version of the Star quote that places the time “the other man went down Hanbury Street”.

Why worry about it if it supports your view, Dusty - you should be pleased if all papers had it, should you not?
Or did you get it all wrong again?

However, if we take the WHOLE grab from the Star in context and quote it accurately,

“Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street.”

And "accompanied" postulates exactly what distance?

So there is a specific reference to Paul being present when the conversation took place.
And there is a specific reference to when Paul went down Hanbury Street.
He went afterwards.
And there is a specific reference to who went with him. He went with Xmere.
And then there is your favourite, most accurate report in the Echo,

“By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness."

So Paul was present and left to go down Hanbury Street after, accompanied by Xmere.

Of course, we can argue semantics, but the actual facts are that the newspapers reported Paul was present when the conversation took place.

But WHERE was he? He was present at the junction, but how close? And where does it say that the carmen left in close company? Or even together?


>>Mizen apparently readily accepted Neils claim to be the finder, …<<<

We have absolutely no way of knowing if that is true or not.

We know there is no record of Mizen setting it straight, and it´s reasonable to suggest he could have.

>>… in spite of how he must have known that it was not correct –<<

See above answer.

See above answer.

>>UNLESS he had been lied to about that extra PC.<<

Not so, even if the two carmen didn’t mention another PC, Mizen had no obvious reason to suppose Neil could not have been the first to discover Mrs. Nichols body. The truth would only have been apparent once he heard that Neil had denied there were two men involved. And according to the newspapers, he still denied it then, placing yet another question mark over Mizen's story.

If the carmen did not mention another PC, Mizen would be left to accept that they were the finders. There would be absolutely no way that he would have thought that Neil was first. What did he do then, do you suppose? Go for tea, leaving Nichols to be "found" by the carmen? Don´t strain yourself, it only gets worse .
"A question mark over Mizen´s story" - amazing! Are you suggesting Mizen lied about the carmen...?

You may need to reconsider a few of your points. Not least the one about never losing any arguments!
__________________

[Fisherman]

>>In the Lloyds interview, Paul claims to have done all the walking and talking himself, and that does not dovetail with the inquest evidence. In that interview, he says he told Mizen that the woman was long dead and cold.<<

No, he didn’t,

“I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame after I had told him the woman was dead.”

There is a full stop at the end of the sentence. He goes on to bitch up the police force to the reporter,

“The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time ...”

In which universe is this not equivalent with what I said? Paul took the role of being the sole finder upon himself, and he made it clear to the reporter that Nichols was long gone when he found her. It´s either that or the reporter spiced it up. Any way, it does not dovetail with what Paul said at the inquest, where he made no reference whatsoever to having been the finder, the sole walker and the man who spoke to Mizen, let alone any thoughts on how long Nichols had been dead.


>>… it is far from unreasonable to suggest that Mizen would have been aware of Neils claim to fame. So why did he not correct his colleague and set the investigation on the right track? Because, I would suggest, he thought it already WAS on the right track, since he was convinced that Neil had found the body and sent the carmen to him.<<

Sounds plausible, but you’ve left out the information that makes it implausible.

From the Saturday morning onwards, stories were circulating about two men finding the body first. When Neil expressly dismissed the idea that two men showed him the body, Mizen is reported as saying he saw nothing of interest, clearly in this specific instant, two men leaving Buck’s Row were of immense interest.

He was asked if he had seen anybody LEAVE THE SPOT SO AS TO ATTRACT ATTENTION! He was NOT asked if he met anybody in Bucks Row.

You really should not lead on that I am the one leaving out important information, Dusty. I will call your cards every time, and it will end in disaster for you every time. Like now, for example.
Plus, of course, you are answering question A with answer B - I was talking about how Mizen would have known that Neil was not first and how he had a a duty to correct his colleague, and not about whether Mizen saw anybody leave the spot to attract attention.
If you can manage to stay with the topic, I would be thankful.

>>There is always the chance of mishearing things. But in Mizens case, he would have misheard the bit about the extra PC …<<

Misheard or put mis-reasoned.

Yikes.

>> …he would have misheard the bit about the severity of the errand <<

The errand was severe whatever version he “misheard” according to the police code.

And that has what to do with what? We are not discussing severity, we are discussing whether a PC would mishear and misunderstand more or less everything he is told.


>>Lechmere claimed that they WERE specific. But Mizen said that he was only informed that a woman "had been found" on the broad of her back in Bucks Row. Now, Lechmere being the finder, what business did he have to say that the woman "had been found" there? Is that not a very strange thing to say when you have found the woman yourself?<<

Yet again, that's NOT what Mizen is reported as saying, the word "found" is the Star reporters choice of wording, there are no quotation marks around it so it cannot be claimed to be Mizen's exact words.
What Mizen is quoted as saying is,

"You are wanted in Buck's-row." "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there."

"You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there."

"You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row).

Has it occurred to you that the three "quotations" differ? And that they cannot all be true? Quotation marks or not?

The Times (and other papers) are quite clear in writing "The man, named Cross, stated that a woman had been found there."

So they are laying down that the carman didsay this (and no paper denies it) - that a woman "had been found" in Bucks Row.

It sits very badly with your supposition of innocence, and I can see why you want it to go away.

It will not, however. It is asking for an explanation, and that needs to be another explanation than "The Times thought it up".

[Trevor Marriott]

>>In the Lloyds interview, Paul claims to have done all the walking and talking himself, and that does not dovetail with the inquest evidence. In that interview, he says he told Mizen that the woman was long dead and cold.<<

No, he didn’t,

“I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame after I had told him the woman was dead.”

There is a full stop at the end of the sentence. He goes on to bitch up the police force to the reporter,

“The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time ...”

In which universe is this not equivalent with what I said? Paul took the role of being the sole finder upon himself, and he made it clear to the reporter that Nichols was long gone when he found her. It´s either that or the reporter spiced it up. Any way, it does not dovetail with what Paul said at the inquest, where he made no reference whatsoever to having been the finder, the sole walker and the man who spoke to Mizen, let alone any thoughts on how long Nichols had been dead.


>>… it is far from unreasonable to suggest that Mizen would have been aware of Neils claim to fame. So why did he not correct his colleague and set the investigation on the right track? Because, I would suggest, he thought it already WAS on the right track, since he was convinced that Neil had found the body and sent the carmen to him.<<

Sounds plausible, but you’ve left out the information that makes it implausible.

From the Saturday morning onwards, stories were circulating about two men finding the body first. When Neil expressly dismissed the idea that two men showed him the body, Mizen is reported as saying he saw nothing of interest, clearly in this specific instant, two men leaving Buck’s Row were of immense interest.

He was asked if he had seen anybody LEAVE THE SPOT SO AS TO ATTRACT ATTENTION! He was NOT asked if he met anybody in Bucks Row.

You really should not lead on that I am the one leaving out important information, Dusty. I will call your cards every time, and it will end in disaster for you every time. Like now, for example.
Plus, of course, you are answering question A with answer B - I was talking about how Mizen would have known that Neil was not first and how he had a a duty to correct his colleague, and not about whether Mizen saw anybody leave the spot to attract attention.
If you can manage to stay with the topic, I would be thankful.

>>There is always the chance of mishearing things. But in Mizens case, he would have misheard the bit about the extra PC …<<

Misheard or put mis-reasoned.

Yikes.

>> …he would have misheard the bit about the severity of the errand <<

The errand was severe whatever version he “misheard” according to the police code.

And that has what to do with what? We are not discussing severity, we are discussing whether a PC would mishear and misunderstand more or less everything he is told.


>>Lechmere claimed that they WERE specific. But Mizen said that he was only informed that a woman "had been found" on the broad of her back in Bucks Row. Now, Lechmere being the finder, what business did he have to say that the woman "had been found" there? Is that not a very strange thing to say when you have found the woman yourself?<<

Yet again, that's NOT what Mizen is reported as saying, the word "found" is the Star reporters choice of wording, there are no quotation marks around it so it cannot be claimed to be Mizen's exact words.
What Mizen is quoted as saying is,

"You are wanted in Buck's-row." "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there."

"You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there."

"You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row).

Has it occurred to you that the three "quotations" differ? And that they cannot all be true? Quotation marks or not?

The Times (and other papers) are quite clear in writing "The man, named Cross, stated that a woman had been found there."

So they are laying down that the carman didsay this (and no paper denies it) - that a woman "had been found" in Bucks Row.

It sits very badly with your supposition of innocence, and I can see why you want it to go away.

It will not, however. It is asking for an explanation, and that needs to be another explanation than "The Times thought it up".

As far as newspapers interviews are concerned and the acceptance for what is contained in them as being correct. I am not going into the primary and secondary source issue that has been done to death, but I will say that as someone who over the years has given numerous press interviews only to find that when the interview is published it sometimes differs significantly from the original interview.

So that is why I continue to say that newspaper articles should be treated with caution and their contents not readily accepted as being correct.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies,but it doesnt always tell the truth"

[GUT]

As far as newspapers interviews are concerned and the acceptance for what is contained in them as being correct. I am not going into the primary and secondary source issue that has been done to death, but I will say that as someone who over the years has given numerous press interviews only to find that when the interview is published it sometimes differs significantly from the original interview.

So that is why I continue to say that newspaper articles should be treated with caution and their contents not readily accepted as being correct.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies,but it doesnt always tell the truth"

Now that I agree with, I've been misquoted more times than I care to count.

[drstrange169]

>>He was asked if he had seen anybody LEAVE THE SPOT SO AS TO ATTRACT ATTENTION!<<

Wrong yet again I'm afraid, Christer. We don't know what Mizen was asked.

An unknown reporter wrote of Thain and Mizen jointly,

"These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention ..."

Obviously as a reporter yourself, you must understand the significance of quotation marks and the difference between them being used for a direct quote as opposed to a journalist choosing to paraphrase a person's actual words.

>>He was NOT asked if he met anybody in Bucks Row.<<

Since you capitalised the word "NOT" you must know what he was asked .

Feel free to share.